On 27/09/2010 22:01, John F. Eldredge wrote:
On 09/27/2010 12:17 PM, Dave F. wrote:
On 27/09/2010 17:37, Lennard wrote:
And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's:
highway=cycleway
And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure
there, years (and years) ago?
If you know - tag it; if not - don't. It's not vital, but could be
useful.
But I'm biased. We render them on the mapnik map, and that's mostly
where my discomfort stems from. It would be fine to have the tags
just for the purpose of generating dedicated railways maps that also
show all the glory of past, but what the heck are they doing on the
current map?
I partially agree with you.
If it's a physical entity that was an old railway line but is still
visible, such a bridge or a cutting/embankment, map& tag it,
including the railway=abandoned tag if you're aware of it.
However if there is *no* visible evidence of it then it shouldn't be
mapped. OSM is for current data only.
Historical maps should use OSM as background& overlay such data, but
*not* include it in the database?
Cheers
Dave F.
You might well have the remains of an old railway, such as an
embankment, that was still present and useful as a landmark, but had not
been turned into a cycleway.
Indeed, & these could/should be mapped/tagged.
In some cases, these remains might have
interruptions in them, where part of the old railway right-of-way had
been replaced by some newer construction. Different mappers may not all
agree on how much of the old railway must remain for it to be worth
marking on the map.
I agree again. How much detail is mapped is purely up to the individual
based on time available &/or patience.
But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there
fifty years ago.
Cheers
Dave F.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
